High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2023-11-03Quashed

NIDHIN CHANDRAN AND OTHERS v. STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS

Case / Petition Number:CRL.MC NO. 4884 OF 2022

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P. V. Kunhikrishnan
Judgment Date: 2023-11-03
Court Decision / Holding: This Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed. All further proceedings against the petitioners in CC No.792/2019, on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court‑I, Ettumanoor arising from Crime No.1451/2019 of Gandhi Nagar Police Station, Kottayam are quashed.
Final Disposition: Quashed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

NIDHIN CHANDRAN
SARATH MOHAN
PAVI SANKAR
JAYAKRISHNAN
VISHNU

Respondents

State of Kerala rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam ( SHO, Gandhi Nagar Police Station, Kottayam)
Hari S
Vishnu
Anandhu Saji
Enosh T Joy

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• K.S.PRENJITH KUMAR
• S.MANU
• BEA MARY BENNY

Counsels for Respondents

• Girish Kumar V

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Criminal Miscellaneous Case (CRL.MC No. 4884 of 2022) filed under Section 482 CrPC before the Kerala High Court, challenging the order in CC No.792/2019 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Ettumanoor arising from Crime No.1451/2019 of Gandhi Nagar Police Station, Kottayam. The petitioners, five accused—Nidhin Chandran, Sarath Mohan, Pavi Sankar, Jayakrishnan, and Vishnu—are charged with offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 294(b), and 323 read with Section 149 IPC. The prosecution contends that the accused formed an unlawful assembly and assaulted the victims. The petitioners submit that the dispute has been settled and the victims support quashing, as evidenced by affidavits, and the petitioners seek the exercise of the High Court’s power under S.482 CrPC to quash non‑compoundable offences arising from private disputes. The Public Prosecutor initially reserved his view but acknowledged the settlement. Relying on Supreme Court dicta in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others, and the earlier cases Gian Singh and Narinder Singh, the court outlines the test for quashing private, non‑compoundable offences where the dispute is settled and the acts are private in nature. The court finds the dispute private, accepts the settlement, and allows the quashing of proceedings, terminating the criminal action against the petitioners. The order underscores the private character of the dispute and limits the quashing to the present matter. Appendix lists annexures supporting the settlement and materials.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Section 143 IPCSection 147 IPCSection 148 IPCSection 294(b) IPCSection 323 r/w Section 149 IPCSection 307 IPCArms Act

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Quashing of non‑compoundable offences under Section 482 CrPC can be exercised in private disputes where the entire dispute is resolved by settlement and the acts have a civil character; not to be exercised for heinous or serious offences (e.g., murder, rape, dacoity) or offences under special statutes; for offences like Section 307 IPC or Arms Act, scrutiny is required and not automatic upon settlement; High Courts may examine the nature of the injury and evidence after investigation; antecedents and conduct of the accused must be considered when deciding on quashing; the civil character of the dispute and settlement can justify quashing to avoid harassment and preserve peace.
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab
Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others (2019 (5) SCC 688)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners submit that the dispute among the parties is private in nature and has been resolved amicably. affidavits sworn by the victims support the settlement and express no objection to quashing the continuation of the prosecution. Relying on the principle laid down in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others and subsequent decisions, they contend that Section 482 CrPC power to quash should be exercised where the dispute is civil/private, the entire dispute is settled, and the offences are non‑compoundable but private in nature. The petitioners emphasize that continuing proceedings would be an unnecessary harassment and that the settlement should bring finality without compromising essential public interest, especially given the relatively private nature of the dispute and lack of ongoing violence.

Contentions of Respondents

The learned Public Prosecutor initially reserved his view but conceded that the matter is settled between the parties, expressing reservations about quashing purely on the basis of settlement in non‑compoundable offences. He submits that while the dispute appears private, the court must still be mindful of the seriousness of the offences and the need to safeguard public interest, and that the decision should be guided by the law laid down in Laxmi Narayan and the related precedents, including the need to assess whether the offences are truly private or have broader societal impact. He also notes the necessity to evaluate the evidence and consider antecedents before quashing, particularly if an offence falls under sections akin to 307 IPC or the Arms Act.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others	2019 (5) SCC 688	Positive	The decision is cited as the controlling doctrine for quashing non‑compoundable offences in private disputes where settlement occurs; the Kerala High Court applies this doctrine to accept the private settlement and quash the proceedings.
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another	2012 (10) SCC 303	Mentioned Only	Referenced in the context of the jurisprudence relied upon by Laxmi Narayan but not independently relied upon in the present judgment for the quashing outcome.
Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another	2014 (6) SCC 466	Mentioned Only	Cited as part of the background jurisprudence informing the Laxmi Narayan framework; the present decision does not treat it as the operative basis for quashing.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against NIDHIN CHANDRAN AND OTHERS v. STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN** **FRIDAY, THE 3[RD] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 12TH KARTHIKA, 1945** **CRL.MC NO. 4884 OF 2022** **CRIME NO.1451/2019 OF GANDHINAGAR POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 792/2019 OF JUDICIAL FIRST** **CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT - I, ETTUMANOOR** ## **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 5:** 1 NIDHIN CHANDRAN AGED 27 YEARS S/O CHANDRASEKHARAN, GEETHAS HOUSE, ETTUMANOOR P.O., KOTTAYAM., PIN - 686631 2 SARATH MOHAN AGED 27 YEARS S/O K.C.MOHANAN, PANIKARU VEEDU, ETTUMANOOR P.O. KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686631 3 PAVI SANKAR AGED 21 YEARS S/O SANKAR, AGED 21 YEARS, PUTHEN PARAMBIL HOUSE, ETTUMANOOR P.O. KOTTAYAM., PIN - 686631 4 JAYAKRISHNAN AGED 33 YEARS S/O JAYAPRAKASH, AGED 33 YEARS, VIJAYAVILASAM HOUSE, KAIPUZHA P.O, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686602 5 VISHNU AGED 33 YEARS S/O SASANKAN, MOORTHITTEL VEEDU, KAIPUZHA P.O, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686602 BY ADVS. K.S.PRENJITH KUMAR S.MANU BEA MARY BENNY ## **RESPONDENTS/STATE/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:** 1 STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM (SHO, GANDHI NAGAR POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM)., PIN - 682031 2 HARI S CRL.MC No.4884 of 2022 2 AGED 24 YEARS S/O SHIBU M.T, ANPATHIL HOUSE., ARPPUKKARA WEST P.O, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686631 3 VISHNU AGED 21 YEARS S/O KANNAN, AKSHAYA HOUSE, PUTHUPPARIYARAM P.O, PALAKKAD,, PIN - 678731 4 ANANDHU SAJI AGED 21 YEARS S/O SAJI, ASHARIPARAMBIL HOUSE, POOVARANI P.O, KOTTAYAM., PIN - 686577 5 ENOSH T JOY AGED 23 YEARS S/O JOY JOSEPH, THUNDIPARAMBIL HOUSE, GANDHI NAGAR P.O, KOTTAYAM., PIN - 686008 BY ADV Girish Kumar V ## **OTHER PRESENT:** SRI.RENJITH.T.R, PP THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.11.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: CRL.MC No.4884 of 2022 3 ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN** **- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -** CRL.MC No.4884 of 2022 **- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -** Dated this the 3[rd] day of November, 2023 ## **ORDER** This Criminal Miscellaneous Case is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Code” for the sake of brevity). 2. The petitioners are the accused in C.C.No.792/2019 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Ettumanoor arising from Crime No.1451/2019 of Gandhi Nagar Police Station, Kottayam. The above case is charge sheeted against the petitioners alleging offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 294(b), 323 r/w Section 149 IPC. 3. The prosecution case is that the accused formed themselves into unlawful assembly and assaulted the victims. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the parties have settled their dispute and do not wish to pursue the prosecution proceedings. The counsel relies on the affidavit filed by the victims in support of his CRL.MC No.4884 of 2022 4 contention. The counsel appearing for the victims also submitted that the matter is settled and the victims have no objection in quashing the prosecution. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, has expressed reservations about quashing the proceedings solely on the basis of the settlement. But the Public Prosecutor conceded that the matter is settled between the parties. 6. This Court has considered the submission of the petitioners, victims and the Public Prosecutor and has also gone through the records including the affidavit filed by the victims. 7. In **State of Madhya Pradesh v Laxmi Narayan and Others (2019 (5) SCC 688),** three judge bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has summarized the situation in which non compoundable offences can be quashed invoking the powers under Section 482 of the Code. The apex court in _**Laxmi Narayan**_ 's case (supra) also relied on the law laid down in **Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another (2012 (10) SCC 303)** and **Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another (2014 (6) SCC 466)** . The CRL.MC No.4884 of 2022 5 apex court in paragraph 13 of the _**Laxmi Narayan**_ 's case discussed the law in detail and the same is extracted ## hereunder: _“13. Considering the law on the point and the other decisions of this Court on the point, referred to herein above, it is observed and held as under:_ _i) that the power conferred under S.482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings for the non - compoundable offences under S.320 of the Code can be exercised having overwhelmingly and predominantly the civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes and when the parties have resolved the entire dispute amongst themselves;_ _ii) such power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involved heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society;_ _iii) similarly, such power is not to be exercised for the offences under the special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender;_ _iv) offences under S.307 IPC and the Arms Act etc. would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone, and therefore, the criminal proceedings for the offence under S.307 IPC and / or the Arms Act etc. which have a serious impact on the society cannot be quashed in exercise of powers under S.482 of the Code, on the ground that the parties have resolved their entire dispute amongst themselves. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of S.307 IPC in the FIR or the charge_ CRL.MC No.4884 of 2022 6 _is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of S.307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to framing the charge under S.307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital / delegate parts of the body, nature of weapons used etc. However, such an exercise by the High Court would be permissible only after the evidence is collected after investigation and the charge sheet is filed / charge is framed and / or during the trial. Such exercise is not permissible when the matter is still under investigation. Therefore, the ultimate conclusion in paragraphs 29.6 and 29.7 of the decision of this Court in the case of Narinder Singh (supra) should be read harmoniously and to be read as a whole and in the circumstances stated herein above;_ _v) while exercising the power under S.482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings in respect of non- compoundable offences, which are private in nature and do not have a serious impart on society, on the ground that there is a settlement / compromise between the victim and the offender, the High Court is required to consider the antecedents of the accused; the conduct of the accused, namely, whether the accused was absconding and why he was absconding, how he had managed with the complainant to enter into a compromise etc.”_ 8. Keeping in mind the above dictum laid down by the apex court, this court perused the facts in this case and also perused the documents produced by the parties. After going through the entire facts and circumstances I am of the considered opinion that the dispute is private in nature CRL.MC No.4884 of 2022 7 and the settlement can be accepted. Therefore, this Criminal Miscellaneous case is allowed. All further proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.792/2019 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Ettumanoor arising from Crime No.1451/2019 of Gandhi Nagar Police Station, Kottayam are quashed. Sd/- **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE** bng CRL.MC No.4884 of 2022 8 ## **APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 4884/2022** PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A1 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 1451/2019 OF GANDHI NAGAR POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM DATED 28.08.2019 Annexure A2 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT DATED 10.09.2019 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE HON'BLE JFCM-I, ETTUMANOOR Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 30.03.2022 Annexure A4 TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 30.03.2022 Annexure A5 TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 30.03.2022 Annexure A6 TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 30.03.2022